January 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Preparing answers on Sidley draft Bylaws questions
by Grace Abuhamad March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Dear Donna, Chuck, and Avri As the leads of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews), the Chairs has asked that you prepare responses to the Sidley Draft Bylaws¹ ³Notes to CWG² since these notes affected mainly the work developed by your design teams. Some questions are easier to answer than others: some questions may require input from the CWG-Stewardship (if, for example, the response could be considered policy), others may have dependencies on the CCWG-Accountability work. I have updated the draft framework since it¹s presentation on 2 December to fix page number references and remove the repeated ³note to CWG² at the beginning of each row. In reviewing this document, there are some items where ICANN may be able to provide information or assist with the response formulation. If you have specific questions for ICANN staff, please let us know. As Lise put in her note below, the primary issue for the 12 January call will be the DT-IPR work, but my assumption is that an update on the response work may be of interest on that call as well. Please let us (staff support) know if there is anything that you need to help you in completing this work. Best, Grace From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:05 AM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the last item from the CWG call 15.12.2015 Dear CWG, At our call on Tuesday we didn¹t have time to discuss two issues: Under 3. Implementation creation of PTI, and 4. Bylaws. Below is a short description of both issues. 3. Implementation sub bullet ³Creation of PTI² At our last CWG call (December 3rd) we considered Sidley¹s role in relation to the creation of PTI and the associated legal work (Co formation, bylaws, articles etc). The client committee discussed this together with Sidley on our call December 10th and, in combination with the direction received in the CWG call, we believe the following is an effective approach: · ICANN to hold the pen and undertake the first pass on the legal work (as part of its role in implementation). · But ICANN to approach the legal work on the implementation of PTI in stages. · In particular, it is important to seek agreement with CWG / Sidley on the key principles before starting the detail drafting phase. · Thereafter, it will be important for CWG / Sidley to review and agree the draft and final forms of the key legal documents · The CWG will need to see regular updates from ICANN as part of this process in order to ensure timely implementation. Action Staff is to advise ICANN to approach the implementation of PTI in stages. In particular, to seek agreement with CWG on the principles before starting the drafting phase. 4. ICANN Bylaws (relating to PTI): The client committee had a call on Thursday December 10th . We discussed with Sidley the request to simplify their draft of the bylaws. Sidley suggested at the call, that instead of simplifying Bylaws at the outset, the CWG could work on the questions previously posed by Sidley and then Sidley could most effectively recommend what needs to be in the Bylaws and what can be implemented as supplements e.g. as 'policies' to be included elsewhere. The co-chairs therefore propose to form a small group to manage dealing with the questions in the first instance in order to inform Sidley¹s restructuring of their draft. The group to be composed of the leads of DTs that most closely associated with the questions asked by Sidley. We suggest Chuck, Donna, Avri to be the members of this small group. Grace was to have shared the framework for answering the questions that was previously prepared by staff. However, it was held back while we discussed the best approach. You will receive these shortly. This means: · That Sidley are on stand-by in relation to the ICANN Bylaws work until the CWG has sorted out the questions asked by Sidley in the bylaws document. · Unless we hear any objections we will task Chuck, Avri and Donna to form some answers to be reviewed by the CWG. · Then CWG will get back to Sidley with the answers in order for Sidley to rework the bylaws. AOB Next call is the 12th of January at 16 UTC, where one of the issues will be the discussion of the IPR document drafted by the DT IPR. It is important that the CWG have a proper look at the IPR document, in particular the key questions / decision points raised in it before the next CWG meeting and ideally submit any comments by email before the next call. Happy holidays to all, Jonathan and Lise

16 31

CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP - Please respond by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 26, 2016

Jan. 26, 2016

All, We have received a direct request (see below) from the CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs for further guidance with respect to the application of the IRP to the actions (or inactions) of PTI. Moreover, we have had input from Sidley via the Client Committee as follows: “Sidley spoke with Becky Burr from CCWG today regarding the CWG dependency for an IRP process. Based on the call, it appears that the open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) – or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues. If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be – for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required? By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal.” So the essential question is: A. Is an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) sufficient? OR B. In addition to such an ICANN bylaw, is a separate process also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues? If B above, what type of process is necessary? As discussed in our CWG meeting yesterday, it will be particularly helpful if when responding to the above, you provide a rationale for your response. In addition, if possible, please make reference to (and be consistent with) the prior work of this CWG Stewardship (such as our proposal in response to the RFP from the ICG). Given that the request from the CCWG Co-Chairs indicates their need to close this item by 28 January, we need to discuss this soon. Accordingly, we request that you provide input ASAP and, in any event, by 23h59 UTC Monday 25 January 2016. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship From: Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] Sent: 21 January 2016 17:05 To: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>; acct-staff(a)icann.org Subject: CCWG-ACCT Request for Guidance on PTI - IRP Sent on behalf of CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Dear Lise, Dear Jonathan, This is to inform you that further to our call #79, the CCWG-ACCT seeks the CWG-Stewardship’s guidance on the two proposed approaches that were suggested to address the dependency that relates to PTI compliance through the Independent Review Process (IRP) i.e.: 1. Provide direct access to IRP for PTI action or inaction; 2. Oblige ICANN in Bylaws to ensure PTI compliance, in which case failure to do is covered by IRP. We are currently in the final stages of discussion to issue our supplemental report and would need to close this item by 28 January. Any prompt feedback you could send us would be much appreciated. We look forward to your guidance. Thank you Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León

8 27

FW: IANA Budget and CCWG-Accountability proposal - CWG-Stewardship changes
by Jonathan Robinson Jan. 26, 2016

Jan. 26, 2016

All, Please be aware of the recent work that has been done in collaboration between CWG Stewardship / CCWG Accountability regarding the “IANA Budget”. It seems to be comprehensive and address the concern it was intended to deal with. One option is to create a checkpoint during the implementation in order to ensure the requirements (of the CWG) are being met in the actiual implementation. If you do have any further input or thoughts, please provide ASAP as this will be discussed and possibly finalised at today’s meeting of the CCWG Accountability (19h00 UTC, 26 January 2016). Thank-you. Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 26 January 2016 00:21 To: fuhr(a)etno.eu; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)actonline.org>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Subject: IANA Budget and CCWG-Accountability proposal - CWG-Stewardship changes Hi all Please find attached a marked up version of Recommendation 4 on the IANA and ICANN Budget veto power. This document includes tracked changes from Jordan Carter, WP1 Rapporteur in the CCWG. The changes are intended to take into account feedback from the CWG-Stewardship's Chuck Gomes, forwarded to us by the CWG Co-Chairs. Jonathan Zuck and I as leads on budget discussions were asked to talk through the feedback and agree what should happen next. I met with Jonathan and Chuck this morning to talk through the written feedback from Chuck and we're all happy that the proposed changes attached are fit for purpose. The CWG-Stewardship's feedback boiled down to wanting more clarity about the IANA Functions Operator's budget process. I have tried in the tracked changes to clarify what a caretaker budget feels like (as the CWG sought some more detail), and emphasise that the current quite-good consultation processes for all Budget creation will be put in the bylaws (clarifying that this will also apply to the IANA Budget). In respect of further detail about timing of the IANA Functions Budget, I am not comfortable with the CCWG-Accountability defining this. We in the CCWG have done our job in creating a structure for accountability in respect of the IANA Budget. I believe it is up to the CWG-Stewardship, either through its Design Teams approach or in the implementation project, to go any further in defining detail about the planning process (how a Budget is created, the timing of approval, etc). It isn't the CCWG's area of expertise or responsibility. If there are concerns about ensuring that such planning was taken into account, we could explore the concept of a reverse conditionality -- we could state in our report that our requirements are met only when CWG-Stewardship's work here is completed to its satisfaction. This item is on the agenda for CCWG-Accountability on Tuesday between 19h and 22h. Happy to expand or discuss. Happy also for this message to be forwarded to the CWG or to the CCWG by the relevant co-chairs or staff, or anyone else who feels so inclined! best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet

1 0

FW: [client com] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 25, 2016

Jan. 25, 2016

Forwarding the email below to the general CWG-Stewardship mailing list. From: <cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Sharon Flanagan <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:07 PM To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: [client com] FW: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP Dear Client Committee, We wanted to flag for you a recent discussion on the CCWG list serve relating to the CWG requirement for an IRP process to cover PTI actions/inactions. The email chain is pasted below and includes input from Greg and Avri. Also, below is the language from the final CWG comment letter to CCWG on this point. We believe the approach highlighted in yellow could be a workable solution. ³As we noted in our comment letter to the Second Draft Proposal, the Third Draft Proposal does not explicitly address the CWG-Stewardship requirement that an independent review process be available for claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI. This requirement could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, a provision could be added to the ICANN Bylaws that would require ICANN to enforce its rights under the ICANN-PTI Contract/Statement of Work (SOW), with a failure by ICANN to address a material breach by PTI under the contract being grounds for an IRP process by the Empowered Community (after engagement and escalation). Another approach would be to expand and modify, as appropriate, the IRP process currently contemplated by the Third Draft Proposal to cover claims relating to actions or inactions of PTI, with the ICANN Bylaws and PTI governance documents expressly confirming that the IRP process is binding on PTI (which provisions would be Fundamental Bylaws that could not be amended without community approval). Regardless of approach, the CWG-Stewardship requires that this dependency be addressed in the final CCWG-Accountability proposal in order for the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the conditions of the CWG-Stewardship final transition proposal have been adequately addressed.² As counsel to CCWG, we have a call with Becky Burr from CCWG on this topic tomorrow. If there is any additional guidance that CWG would like to provide on this topic beyond what was included in the comment letter, could you please let us know? Best regards, Holly and Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.orgOn Behalf OfBurr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:42:41 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Schaefer, Brett; Greg Shatan; Avri Doria Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP I am willing to address this issue either way here. We just need clarification from the CWG as to its preference. Either we create a stand-alone standard of review (in which case I need help articulating) or we say (in the Bylaws) that ICANN is responsible for ensuring that PTI gets it right, and allow challenges via the IRP on the basis of ICANN¹s actions or inactions that fall below this standard. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=CwMF- g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=AKn_gzAS4ANpCEqx2GjPwjUkqYPHaN7m0NQNyfQXAgk&m=1 xdOjghwOaRYcxDPTuhZkMCTD7eRwKXzUuTnQOV8IMo&s=xy01Bx-Fh__bSI6ZDFiOqvA0_GlpT0j Ry5DUdZh1uvw&e=> From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:45 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP I agree and would add that DIDP appeals, although they potentially could involve a bylaws violation I suppose, would most often involve an independent review via IRP of the original decision to ensure that it was correct. It seems that the IRP is being stretched in the borrowing. At the very least, there needs to be clarification that on how the IRP should handle these matters if it is the proper vehicle and, if it is not, what exactly should be created to handle these matters. From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:36 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI and the IRP Avri, I agree with your analysis and share your concern. The PTI IRP is fundamentally not a Bylaws issue (or more accurately -- fundamentally not a "violation of the Bylaws" issue). Having "borrowed" the IRP in an attempt to fill the requirements of the CWG, we can't then pretend that the requirements of the CWG are coterminous with the general design of the IRP. The CWG's requirements will require a specific statement of the basis on which a claim may be brought -- and it is a different basis than for other IRP claims. This doesn't have to be long, but it does have to be right. Conversely, if we are truly wedded to the idea that the IRP is a "bylaws court" and nothing more, then it can't be used to satisfy the CWG's requirement and we will need to do something else. Personally, I don't endorse this position (though it does raise some concern about the ability of the panel to deal with PTI failures, if it is designed to be a bylaws court. That said, I have sufficient faith in the skill of experienced arbitrators to be able to resolve a variety of disputes.) Since this a requirement for the transition, we need to resolve this crisply, explicitly and appropriately. Greg On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: Hi, I am uncomfortable with closing the discussion of the new principles for the IRP. Since we decided not to create a new entity to serve the requirements of the CWG but rather to make it a function of the IRP, we need to make sure that the basis for the IRP is fit for purpose before starting on its implementation. The CWG calls for: > 1. *Appeal mechanism*. An appeal mechanism, for example in > the form of an Independent Review Panel, for issues relating to the > IANA functions. For example, direct customers with non-remediated > issues or matters referred by ccNSO or GNSO after escalation by the > CSC will have access to an Independent Review Panel. The appeal > mechanism will not cover issues relating to ccTLD delegation and > re-delegation, which mechanism is to be developed by the ccTLD > community post-transition. > I do not see how to define this function in terms of By Laws alone as By Laws have little to say about negotiated SLAs and the customers' or CSC complaints. Perhaps it can be done by changes to some of the By Laws, but I do not see us as having scoped out what those changes need to be. So until such time as we have dealt the the policy issues of filling the CWG's requirements, I would like to register a personal caution, and thus an objection, to closing the discussion of the basis and standing for IRP appeals. I do not believe this is merely an implementation issue. At least not yet. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiviru s&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDD kMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=hrS-SjNieBsQS3g-4IaOCu qnhva_tsA1TDs8a0zMOOQ&e=> BrettSchaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ& c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zp JkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=VeYpm4OC3DluvWT6BqP7fLSRT7eOV0sSm 9Vw5RR91S4&e=> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=9zpJkUMQmkKK1JJZ4UjZmt9rbYe 2_te6YMKJgHLAMCs&s=L5e8VgjjxxQ3JnJo5baWM3AIcoofHz8l8EplNcQIZag&e=> **************************************************************************** ************************ This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************** ************************

3 2

Bylaws Clarifications for Sidley
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 25, 2016

Jan. 25, 2016

Dear all, On the call Thursday, we presented an updated version of the document that seeks to provide answers to the clarification notes in Sidley¹s draft Bylaws from 7 November. As a reminder, the process so far for preparing these responses has been as follows: * Sidley drafted Bylaws and delivered on 7 November (document attached). In the draft Bylaws, Sidley had highlighted areas that required clarification from the CWG. * Staff prepared a framework for responding to the Sidley notes. In this process, it became evident that the majority of the clarifications surrounded the work of DT-C (CSC), DT-M (Escalation), and DT-N (Reviews). * The leads of the three DTs collaborated and provided initial responses to the notes (mid-December to early January). * Staff compiled and cleaned up the document, noting some areas that required resolution by the full CWG. The CWG is now tasked with reviewing this document so that responses can be provided to Sidley after our next call on 4 February. This work can be done via the mailing list by using the track changes¹ feature in Word. Staff will monitor the list and manage version control if needed. If there are outstanding issues, or disagreement on a response, this can be discussed further at the next meeting. Please let me know if we can assist further, Grace

1 0

Tracking CCWG-Accountability Work
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 25, 2016

Jan. 25, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, On our last CWG-Stewardship call, staff presented a tracking sheet to help monitor the work of the CCWG-Accountability on the CWG-Stewardship dependencies. While the majority of the dependencies have been met, Chuck and others on the CWG had noticed areas of improvement on the Budget section, and there was some discussion last week about the standard of the review for the IRP. Please take a look at the attached document and use this mailing list thread to present your assessment of whether or not the dependencies are being met. Per Matthew Shears¹ request, I have added a column on the right for comments and observations. Considering the timeline, the sooner feedback can be provided to the CCWG, the better. For your convenience, I have attached the latest versions of the relevant sections. For all CCWG-Accountability final report drafts, please see: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report. As part of the discussion of the IRP, please refer to some analysis provided by Sidley to the Client Committee mailing list. The first email from Sharon is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000371.html. The second email is a follow-up after a conversation with Becky Burr regarding the IRP: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2016-January/000373.html. I¹ve copied a key excerpt of this text below and cc¹ed Becky so that she can join the conversation if needed. ³{] Based on the call, it appears that the open question for CWG is whether the CWG dependency is adequately met with an ICANN bylaw provision that allows for an IRP if ICANN fails to enforce the contract with PTI (for example, due to a material performance breach by PTI that is not cured) or whether in addition to such an ICANN bylaw, a separate process is also required that would give direct customers a right to mediation or arbitration to address SLAs or other service issues. If the latter is required, then in order for CCWG to create such a process, it would need input from CWG on what the standard of review should be for those types of proceedings and what the type of process would be for example, would non-binding mediation be sufficient to address a direct customer issue or would binding arbitration be required? By clarifying this point, CCWG will be better positioned to ensure that the CWG dependency is being met in the CCWG proposal." Best, Grace

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #75 - 21 January 2016
by Brenda Brewer Jan. 22, 2016

Jan. 22, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #75 on 21 January 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/WYxlAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Action item: CWG-Stewardship to consider the role of ICANN staff in the implementation of IANA IPR issues Action item: Staff to distribute CG tracking of CCWG work to the mailing list. CWG-Stewardship to review and provide input. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review current wording in relation to IRP for suitability and communicate feedback to the CCWG- Accountability as soon as possible. Chairs to circulate current wording to the list. Action item: Take input on list as to the requirements for the IPR consistent with prior work and recommendations to the CCWG-Accountability. Action item: Staff to circulate overview of questions and draft responses on the draft Bylaws to the CWG-Stewardship. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review document and provide input on list. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to ensure that bylaws derived from the work of the CWG-Stewardship are appropriately sized and fit for purpose. Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Primary objectives of the call are 1) update on implementation from ICANN staff, 2) confirming plan for IPR work, 3) co-ordination with CCWG-Accountability, 4) work on the Bylaws. * Call may not take 2 hours 2. Implementation Update * See slides provided by staff * May need to consider role of staff in the implementation of IANA IPR - could be considered under item 3 * What is the status of the collection of statistics to measure SLEs? Intended to be provided by the middle December - did not meet that deadline. Now foreseen for end of January (on track). Preliminary report from contractor is being reviewed by staff as it requests certain assumptions to be validated. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to consider the role of ICANN staff in the implementation of IANA IPR issues 3. IANA IPR * Discussed in December as well as previous meeting. Functional neutrality (owner must operate in such a way that control is not steered by one of the operational communities over the exclusion of others) deemed acceptable based on those discussions, not necessary to create a whole new entity, logical option is to use the IETF Trust provided no substantial issues emerge in the future. * Confirm that there are no objections to this approach. No objections received so the CWG-Stewardship will proceed on this basis. * Discuss how the different operational communities can collaborate on the implementation of this solution. Utilize the group that has been operating to co-ordinate on this topic consisting of representatives of the different operational communities, plus Greg and Chairs of CWG-Stewardship. Objective is to flesh out the principle and example terms under which the different communities would have their relationships with the IETF Trust in relation to IANA IPR. Group has agreed to make all of its future email conversations public. Notes of previous meetings have been circulated. Target is to reach agreement on high level principles in advance of submission of the ICG proposal to the NTIA. 4. CCWG-Accountability * Communicated to CCWG-Accountability that some issues that needed to be worked further including budget and appeal mechanisms. * CCWG-Accountability is working hard on these issues with staff tracking the implementation and review of CWG-Stewardship items. Intensive work plan from CCWG-Accountability has resulted in request to CWG-Stewardship Chairs to review progress. CWG-Stewardship have instead suggested to share the documents with the CWG-Stewardship list to allow for input by the whole group, noting that turnaround time is short. * Budget item has already had its second reading - 3 responses received from the group which all have been sent to the CCWG-Accountability. Chairs suggest that Chuck as Chair of DT-O connects with the CCWG-Accountability leads on this topic (Jordan Carter and Jonathan Zuck) who are now tasked with writing the revised language in the proposal. Chuck agreed to take on this task. * Staff is working on a document that is tracking the CWG-Stewardship requirements which was presented during the meeting. Consider adding a column on the end to be able to note concerns or suggestions. * Becky Burr has reached out to some of the RySG participants on the IRP question. Community needs to have the ability through the community mechanisms to use the IRP if the PTI does not deliver on its obligations. Proposed bylaw changes currently do not refer to PTI (that ICANN is required to enforce contract with PTI). Could consider suggesting making the language more specific. Critical to be clear on what requirements are, but need to be careful to not open this up to redesign, need to be consistent with original recommendations and escalation mechanisms provided - only if those do not work, independent review needs to be available. Action item: Staff to distribute CG tracking of CCWG work to the mailing list. CWG-Stewardship to review and provide input. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review current wording in relation to IRP for suitability and communicate feedback to the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible. Chairs to circulate current wording to the list. Action item: Take input on list as to the requirements for the IPR consistent with prior work and recommendations to the CCWG-Accountability. 5. ICANN Bylaws relating to CWG-Stewardship * Design team leads contributed to the answers provided to Sidley where possible. Staff identified questions that were still left open and requiring CWG-Stewardship review. First reading of the document during this meeting, with second reading foreseen for the next meeting. * Risk to embody stuff in bylaws that should be dealt with elsewhere such as statement of work and contract between ICANN and PTI. * Answers to questions provide comprehensive view of the intended outcome - Sidley will review this and is expected to developed a slimmed down version of the Bylaws based on the input provided. Action item: Staff to circulate overview of questions and draft responses on the draft Bylaws to the CWG-Stewardship. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to review document and provide input on list. Action item: CWG-Stewardship to ensure that bylaws derived from the work of the CWG-Stewardship are appropriately sized and fit for purpose. 6. AOB * Next meeting scheduled for Thursday 4 February at 16.00 UTC. * Update on status of replacement of ccNSO member? To be communicated shortly. 7. Closing Remarks

2 1

Blog: Volume 12: IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Jan. 21, 2016

Jan. 21, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions Volume 12: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-di scussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-12-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> 22 months after the big announcement by NTIA, the transition is within reach It has been a full 22 months since NTIA first announced <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio n-key-internet-domain-name-functions> its intention to transition its stewardship of theIANA functions. In that time, the three operational communities (names, numbers, and protocol parameters) have spent thousands of hours meeting, writing and reviewing documents, and reading emails. The combined IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal is ready to be submitted to the ICANNBoard and NTIA, pending the completion of the final report on the Work Stream 1 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability. Note: The last status update on this series of IANA Stewardship Transition updates was published 2 November 2015 <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-11-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions> . This update, therefore, includes major events since that last update. IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal On 30 November 2015, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) published itsSummary Report on Comments Received during the Public Comment Period on the Combined Transition Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf > . The public comment period <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> for the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department¹s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> ended on 8 September 2015. The ICG is now awaiting confirmation from the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANAStewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) that the Work Stream proposal by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) meets their needs. IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) The CWG-Stewardship is working to finalize its position on IANA IPR. The goal is to find a mutually acceptable way forward on the IPR issue for all three IANA operational communities to allow the IANAStewardship Transition to take place on schedule, in September 2016. In December 2015, the CWG-Stewardship¹s Design Team on IPR (DT-IPR <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/DT-IPR++IANA+Intellec tual+Property+Rights> ) published its latest version of draft principles and requirements <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56145364/DT-IPR%20Draft%20 of%20December%2014%202015.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1450225433000&api=v 2> to which the two operational communities provided feedback in early January. Following the CWG-Stewardship's confirmation on a position, representatives from each operational community will work together to refine an outcome. Implementation work ICANN is facilitating monthly community discussions and providing implementation preparation updates on Transition Facilitation Calls <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transition-facilitation-2015-09-23-en > held between ICANN staff and the leadership teams of the CCWG-Accountability, CWG-Stewardship, CRISP Team, IANAPLAN WG, GNSO, ccNSO, IETF, IAB, and the RIRs. The latest call was held on 13 January 2016. To keep up to date with implementation activities, see ICANN¹s IANA Stewardship Implementation page <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> . CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 Recommendations The CCWG-Accountability is currently in the process of finalizing its recommendations for Work Stream 1, following the 8 January 2016 release of the staff report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-ccwg-acco untability-proposal-08jan16-en.pdf> and summary <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-draft-ccwg-acc ountability-proposal-08jan16-en.xlsx> on the public comments received on the 3rd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf> . Between 12 and 21 January, the CCWG-Accountability is conducting a series of readings <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report> via teleconference of its revised 12 recommendations. The upcoming teleconferences that will complete the series of readings are: 19 January 2016 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56990858> , 12:00-15:00 UTC 21 January 2016 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56990860> , 12:00-15:00 UTC Details of the group¹s working methods and time plan for this phase of the proposal finalization are available in this Work Plan <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56989168/CCWG%20January%20 Work%20Plan%20-%205%20Jan.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1452094855000&api=v 2> . The two recommendations that generated the most feedback in the public comment period, and therefore have required the most significant amounts of discussion amongst the CCWG-Accountability to finalize are: Recommendation #5: Changing aspects of ICANN's Mission, Commitments and Core Values Recommendation #11: Board obligations with regards to Governmental Advisory Committee Advice (Stress Test 18) Consideration of the recommendations By Chartering Organizations The CCWG-Accountability has requested that all Chartering Organizations of the CCWG-Accountability indicate whether they support the recommendations in the proposal by 21 January 2015 at the latest. The Chartering Organizations are the GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, ASO, and SSAC. The GNSO, ccNSOand GAC are currently working on responses to the CCWG-Accountability. Timeline for finalization of proposal and submission to the ICANN Board The CCWG-Accountability had, at the time of the publication of the 3rd Draft Proposal, planned to complete its final report and send it to the ICANN Board by the end of January 2016. This timeline is likely to be adjusted following feedback from all Chartering Organizations. When feedback is received from all six Chartering Organizations, the CCWG-Accountability will be in a better position to judge how much additional work may be needed to finalize the report and will adjust its timeline for the Work Stream 1 Final Proposal. Feedback From the CCWG-Accountability¹s legal counsel Following a teleconference on 8 January 2016 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56989655> between the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs and the group¹s legal counsel, it was agreed that legal counsel would provide its input on the 12 recommendations in two steps: After the first reading, legal counsel will share high level feedback and/or concerns that could then be discussed as part of the second reading on the recommendation. After the second reading, legal counsel will provide detailed edits where appropriate. If the input would result in a substantial change to a recommendation, there will be a discussion on the CCWG-Accountability mailing list to consider how to proceed with the input. If there is no substantial change involved, the recommendation will be amended to incorporate the legal counsel¹s input. Drafting of ICANN Bylaws On the teleconference on 8 January 2016 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56989655> between the CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs and the group¹s legal counsel, counsel noted that final drafting of the Bylaws, based on the recommendations in the CCWG-Accountability¹s final report, would need to be primarily the responsibility of legal counsel. This would then include representatives of the CCWG-Accountability providing an oversight role to ensure the Bylaws meet their requirements, rather than have all members of the CCWG-Accountability participating in line edits of the drafted Bylaws. The CWG-Stewardship is currently reviewing a draft of the ICANN Bylaws <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20151107/f66cef8b/2103 78438_15-0001.pdf> that are to change as a result of the CWG-Stewardship¹s requirements. The draft was submitted <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-November/000348.html> by the group¹s legal counsel on 7 November 2015. ICANN 55 The CCWG-Accountability will meet in Marrakech during ICANN55 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55> , but at this point, the main focus of the CCWG¹s work in Marrakech is planning Work Stream 2 activities. Work Stream 2 focuses on accountability topics that extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. Key documents Jan 2016 CCWG-Accountability Final Report <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Final+Report> (Work in progress) 14 Dec 2015 CWG-Stewardship IANA Intellectual Property Rights - Draft Principles and Requirements <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56145364/DT-IPR%20Draft%20 of%20December%2014%202015.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1450225433000&api=v 2> 30 Nov 2015ICG - Summary Report on Comments Recieved During the Public Comment Period on the Combined Transition Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf > You can play a role in IANA¹s future Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact acct-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 15 January 2015

2 3

FW: Review of CCWG proposal on budget and separation powers
by Lise Fuhr Jan. 20, 2016

Jan. 20, 2016

Dear CWG, FYI - we will discuss CCWG and the review at the call tomorrow. Best, Lise From: Lise Fuhr Sent: 20 January 2016 22:49 To: 'Mathieu Weill'; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: ACCT-Staff; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings Subject: Review of CCWG proposal on budget and separation powers Dear CCWG chairs The CWG reviewed the documents regarding the budget and the Separation Power. We have received the following three answers to the budget which we pass on to you in order to review and incorporate in your proposal. We will discuss the dialogue forward on the budget issues in the CCWG proposal with the CWG on our call tomorrow and we will suggest that Chuck Gomes is taking the dialogue with Jonathan Zuck and Jordan Carter on the budget issues. We will get back to you with the outcome of this discussion. So far we have not received any feedback on the separation power. Please don't hesitate if there are any questions. Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr Co-chairs of CWG

1 0

Documents for review by CWG - budget and separation power
by Lise Fuhr Jan. 19, 2016

Jan. 19, 2016

Dear CWG, As discussed on our call last Tuesday we have to review the documents from CCWG on the list between our calls. Attached in this email are the CCWG documents in relation to our requirements regarding budget and separation powers. Please review and comment on the list by Tuesday 19.1.2016 23.59 UTC. Jonathan and I will gather the comments and forward them to CCWG. Please be aware that the separation powers will have a second reading on the 21.1.2016. You only need to read and comment on the parts that relates to our requirements. Best regards, Lise

4 4